hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 2 +- tests/acpi-test-data/pc/DSDT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 5150 bytes tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SRAT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes tests/acpi-test-data/q35/DSDT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 7834 bytes tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SRAT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes tests/bios-tables-test.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/DSDT.numamem create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SRAT.numamem create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/DSDT.numamem create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SRAT.numamem
These are the patches left over from the pull request: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/9] x86 and machine queue, 2017-10-05 because of some errors when tested by "make check" command[1]. Now, the QEMU 2.11.0 has been released, rebase/retest/respin them for v2.12 dev. Changelog: --Rebase and retest this patch in v2.11.0 --Update the DSDT.numamem: [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg01334.html Dou Liyang (2): ACPI/unit-test: Add a testcase for RAM allocation in numa node hw/acpi-build: Make next_base easy to follow hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 2 +- tests/acpi-test-data/pc/DSDT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 5150 bytes tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SRAT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes tests/acpi-test-data/q35/DSDT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 7834 bytes tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SRAT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes tests/bios-tables-test.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/DSDT.numamem create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SRAT.numamem create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/DSDT.numamem create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SRAT.numamem -- 2.14.3
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:08:53PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > These are the patches left over from the pull request: > > [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/9] x86 and machine queue, 2017-10-05 > > because of some errors when tested by "make check" command[1]. > > Now, the QEMU 2.11.0 has been released, rebase/retest/respin them > for v2.12 dev. > > Changelog: > --Rebase and retest this patch in v2.11.0 > --Update the DSDT.numamem: > > [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg01334.html Do we know what caused the failures Peter saw, and if we can now be sure it won't happen again? -- Eduardo
Hi Eduardo, At 12/19/2017 06:09 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:08:53PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: >> These are the patches left over from the pull request: >> >> [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/9] x86 and machine queue, 2017-10-05 >> >> because of some errors when tested by "make check" command[1]. >> >> Now, the QEMU 2.11.0 has been released, rebase/retest/respin them >> for v2.12 dev. >> >> Changelog: >> --Rebase and retest this patch in v2.11.0 >> --Update the DSDT.numamem: >> >> [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg01334.html > > Do we know what caused the failures Peter saw, and if we can now > be sure it won't happen again? Sorry, I can't. I tested it many times with my colleagues, it won't happen like Peter saw. This issue is very subtle and funny. Could you give me some suggestions? BTW, I used "make TEST_ACPI_REBUILD_AML=1 check" to create the DSDT file. Is it correct? Thanks, dou. >
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:01:59PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > Hi Eduardo, > > At 12/19/2017 06:09 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:08:53PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > > > These are the patches left over from the pull request: > > > > > > [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/9] x86 and machine queue, 2017-10-05 > > > > > > because of some errors when tested by "make check" command[1]. > > > > > > Now, the QEMU 2.11.0 has been released, rebase/retest/respin them > > > for v2.12 dev. > > > > > > Changelog: > > > --Rebase and retest this patch in v2.11.0 > > > --Update the DSDT.numamem: > > > > > > [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg01334.html > > > > Do we know what caused the failures Peter saw, and if we can now > > be sure it won't happen again? > > Sorry, I can't. I tested it many times with my colleagues, it won't > happen like Peter saw. This issue is very subtle and funny. Could you > give me some suggestions? I guess all we can do is to ask Peter to test if the issue is still reproducible. Peter, do you prefer that I just send a regular pull request asking for testing, or do you prefer to apply this series and test it manually before I send a pull request? > > BTW, I used "make TEST_ACPI_REBUILD_AML=1 check" to create the DSDT > file. Is it correct? This sounds correct to me. Igor, can you confirm? -- Eduardo
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:38:20 -0200 Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:01:59PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > > Hi Eduardo, > > > > At 12/19/2017 06:09 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:08:53PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > > > > These are the patches left over from the pull request: > > > > > > > > [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/9] x86 and machine queue, 2017-10-05 > > > > > > > > because of some errors when tested by "make check" command[1]. > > > > > > > > Now, the QEMU 2.11.0 has been released, rebase/retest/respin them > > > > for v2.12 dev. > > > > > > > > Changelog: > > > > --Rebase and retest this patch in v2.11.0 > > > > --Update the DSDT.numamem: > > > > > > > > [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg01334.html > > > > > > Do we know what caused the failures Peter saw, and if we can now > > > be sure it won't happen again? > > > > Sorry, I can't. I tested it many times with my colleagues, it won't > > happen like Peter saw. This issue is very subtle and funny. Could you > > give me some suggestions? > > I guess all we can do is to ask Peter to test if the issue is > still reproducible. > > Peter, do you prefer that I just send a regular pull request > asking for testing, or do you prefer to apply this series and > test it manually before I send a pull request? > > > > > BTW, I used "make TEST_ACPI_REBUILD_AML=1 check" to create the DSDT > > file. Is it correct? > > This sounds correct to me. Igor, can you confirm? It's will rebuild/update reference tables. I'm for merging it early and tracking/fixing issue Peter saw during this dev cycle.
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 08:24:34PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:38:20 -0200 > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:01:59PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > > > Hi Eduardo, > > > > > > At 12/19/2017 06:09 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:08:53PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > > > > > These are the patches left over from the pull request: > > > > > > > > > > [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/9] x86 and machine queue, 2017-10-05 > > > > > > > > > > because of some errors when tested by "make check" command[1]. > > > > > > > > > > Now, the QEMU 2.11.0 has been released, rebase/retest/respin them > > > > > for v2.12 dev. > > > > > > > > > > Changelog: > > > > > --Rebase and retest this patch in v2.11.0 > > > > > --Update the DSDT.numamem: > > > > > > > > > > [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg01334.html > > > > > > > > Do we know what caused the failures Peter saw, and if we can now > > > > be sure it won't happen again? > > > > > > Sorry, I can't. I tested it many times with my colleagues, it won't > > > happen like Peter saw. This issue is very subtle and funny. Could you > > > give me some suggestions? > > > > I guess all we can do is to ask Peter to test if the issue is > > still reproducible. > > > > Peter, do you prefer that I just send a regular pull request > > asking for testing, or do you prefer to apply this series and > > test it manually before I send a pull request? > > > > > > > > BTW, I used "make TEST_ACPI_REBUILD_AML=1 check" to create the DSDT > > > file. Is it correct? > > > > This sounds correct to me. Igor, can you confirm? > It's will rebuild/update reference tables. > > I'm for merging it early and tracking/fixing issue Peter saw during this dev cycle. > > Send an ack then?
[...] >>>> >>>> BTW, I used "make TEST_ACPI_REBUILD_AML=1 check" to create the DSDT >>>> file. Is it correct? >>> >>> This sounds correct to me. Igor, can you confirm? >> It's will rebuild/update reference tables. >> >> I'm for merging it early and tracking/fixing issue Peter saw during this dev cycle. >> >> > > Send an ack then? > Hi Michael, I saw Igor gave the Reviewed-by at 21 Dec 2017. What is the state of this patchset? I rebase and retest it again, Do I need to send it again? Thanks, dou > >
At 01/12/2018 03:23 PM, Dou Liyang wrote: > [...] >>>>> >>>>> BTW, I used "make TEST_ACPI_REBUILD_AML=1 check" to create the DSDT >>>>> file. Is it correct? >>>> >>>> This sounds correct to me. Igor, can you confirm? >>> It's will rebuild/update reference tables. >>> >>> I'm for merging it early and tracking/fixing issue Peter saw during >>> this dev cycle. >>> >>> >> >> Send an ack then? >> > Hi Michael, > > I saw Igor gave the Reviewed-by at 21 Dec 2017 ^^ Oops! Sorry, it's 27 Dec. > > What is the state of this patchset? > > I rebase and retest it again, Do I need to send it again? > > Thanks, > dou >> >>
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.